From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed Jul 25 19:47:17 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 26 Jul 2001 02:47:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 92306 invoked from network); 26 Jul 2001 02:47:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 26 Jul 2001 02:47:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.196) by mta3 with SMTP; 26 Jul 2001 02:47:15 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 19:47:15 -0700 Received: from 200.69.11.19 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 02:47:14 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.69.11.19] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Tidying notes on {goi} Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 02:47:14 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jul 2001 02:47:15.0129 (UTC) FILETIME=[471D6A90:01C1157D] From: "Jorge Llambias" la pycyn cusku di'e >Cowan: >normal quantifier, so the second {su'o da} means "one or more of (the >existing) da", not very useful.But ro da poi .... re da would mean "two of >those which etc."> > >Well, those are remarkably UNnormal quantifiers in logic, but right for >that >part of lojban that has the standard sumti as quantifier-gadri-bridi.i.e., >quantifier-sumti. The point is also correct. What has the world come to? I thought pc was going to be horrified at this new binding of an already bound variable! Anyway, how do we read this then: ro da poi prenu zo'u da prami su'o da Is that {ro da poi prenu zo'u da prami da}, or is it {ro da poi prenu ku'o ro de poi prenu zo'u da prami de}? >Proposal (clarification?): {goi} is always defining and always takes the >form > {x goi y}, where y is assigned the value of x. [...] >Objection. (I really need help here, since the one objection seems to be >that >we sometimes want to do the defining in the reverse order and so need {goi} >not {no'u}, which is only factual, not defining. This seems to trivial to >bother with -- and can {goi} take {se} if it really makes a difference?) I would say that the objection is that it is not strictly necessary to fix one order. In the cases where both sumti already have a referent, goi makes no sense. In the cases where neither has a referent, goi makes little sense, but none that requires the connectands to be in a particular order anyway. And if one has a referent and the other doesn't, it is clear which one gets assigned. Of course, the order helps when the listener is in doubt as to what the speaker means, so it works as a measure of redundancy. In any case, I find goi too cumbersome for actual use, so I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp